Comments on: Clinton on Marriage http://lawdork.net/2009/07/14/clinton-on-marriage/ Same dork, new year! Fri, 19 Mar 2010 04:04:59 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.1 hourly 1 By: Bill Clinton at Netroots Nation. Watch it. http://lawdork.net/2009/07/14/clinton-on-marriage/#comment-1806 Bill Clinton at Netroots Nation. Watch it. Fri, 14 Aug 2009 07:53:08 +0000 http://lawdork.net/?p=2545#comment-1806 [...] I discussed at the time, there’s a lot of nuance in politicians’ “support” for marriage [...] [...] I discussed at the time, there’s a lot of nuance in politicians’ “support” for marriage [...]

]]> By: Luke http://lawdork.net/2009/07/14/clinton-on-marriage/#comment-1456 Luke Tue, 21 Jul 2009 00:06:31 +0000 http://lawdork.net/?p=2545#comment-1456 Nice post and blog! Greets. Nice post and blog! Greets.

]]> By: PG http://lawdork.net/2009/07/14/clinton-on-marriage/#comment-1376 PG Wed, 15 Jul 2009 19:18:13 +0000 http://lawdork.net/?p=2545#comment-1376 But a moral principle is not the same as a Constitutional one. Certainly Jefferson could not claim that slavery was unconstitutional, given that it had been specifically provide for in both the 3/5 Clause and the requirement that persons held in servitude who escaped to free states must be returned to the slave states. But a moral principle is not the same as a Constitutional one. Certainly Jefferson could not claim that slavery was unconstitutional, given that it had been specifically provide for in both the 3/5 Clause and the requirement that persons held in servitude who escaped to free states must be returned to the slave states.

]]> By: Manos Torgo http://lawdork.net/2009/07/14/clinton-on-marriage/#comment-1368 Manos Torgo Wed, 15 Jul 2009 18:38:59 +0000 http://lawdork.net/?p=2545#comment-1368 Yes, I do believe that in principle they see states voting to ban SSM as a violation of the Constitution.Thomas Jefferson is a prime example of someone who in principle was not in favor of slavery and recognized it as being morally wrong....but in practice...he did little or could do little. That's why I view them as pragmatists more than just weak willed politicians. I sense that they believe something in principle, yet they must find a way to deliver in practice. So thjey fight for small victories in order to win the larger war. Or I could be completely delusional and projecting my own values on these guys. I am open to that possibility. Yes, I do believe that in principle they see states voting to ban SSM as a violation of the Constitution.Thomas Jefferson is a prime example of someone who in principle was not in favor of slavery and recognized it as being morally wrong….but in practice…he did little or could do little.

That’s why I view them as pragmatists more than just weak willed politicians. I sense that they believe something in principle, yet they must find a way to deliver in practice. So thjey fight for small victories in order to win the larger war.

Or I could be completely delusional and projecting my own values on these guys. I am open to that possibility.

]]> By: PG http://lawdork.net/2009/07/14/clinton-on-marriage/#comment-1358 PG Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:09:13 +0000 http://lawdork.net/?p=2545#comment-1358 Zeppo, That covers whether the Full Faith & Credit clause requires states to respect contracts that conflict with the state's own public policy, and I agree that it has been the consistent tradition NOT to require states to recognize marriages that would be illegal under their own laws. Texas has never been required to recognize a first-cousin marriage that was legal in VT but illegal under TX law. But then on what authority does the federal government refuse to recognize marriages that ARE legal in the states where they are contracted? The federal government has to recognize all the first-cousin, 16-year-olds' marriages that are legal in the various states. The one kind of marriage the federal government has refused to recognize that is legal in a state is same-sex marriage. Why is SSM singled out for different treatment by the federal government, when the first cousins in VT get their marriage recognized by the feds? Zeppo,

That covers whether the Full Faith & Credit clause requires states to respect contracts that conflict with the state’s own public policy, and I agree that it has been the consistent tradition NOT to require states to recognize marriages that would be illegal under their own laws. Texas has never been required to recognize a first-cousin marriage that was legal in VT but illegal under TX law.

But then on what authority does the federal government refuse to recognize marriages that ARE legal in the states where they are contracted? The federal government has to recognize all the first-cousin, 16-year-olds’ marriages that are legal in the various states. The one kind of marriage the federal government has refused to recognize that is legal in a state is same-sex marriage. Why is SSM singled out for different treatment by the federal government, when the first cousins in VT get their marriage recognized by the feds?

]]> By: Zeppo http://lawdork.net/2009/07/14/clinton-on-marriage/#comment-1355 Zeppo Wed, 15 Jul 2009 06:26:12 +0000 http://lawdork.net/?p=2545#comment-1355 All powers not specifically allocated to the federal government are reserved to the states. Marriages are defined and solemnized by each individual State. If one state wants to define a different type of marriage relationship then it can but other states do not have to follow. People are equal within the state boundary but the concept of 'equal' does not require the laws of different states to be the same. If one state, say California, wants to legalize medical marijuanna for treating illness and does so, is a Californian in Texas or a Texan not being treated equally if Texas decides not to and arrests the Californian and/or Texan for possession)? If the concept of equal expands to federal jurisdiction for state powers then the states lose their individual competency and jurisdiction over their laws. If this gets to SCOTUS then I think that SCOTUS will say what I have just said: that the federal Constitution does not even mention marriage and therefore the power to define and solemnize marriage is reserved to the individual states. All powers not specifically allocated to the federal government are reserved to the states. Marriages are defined and solemnized by each individual State. If one state wants to define a different type of marriage relationship then it can but other states do not have to follow. People are equal within the state boundary but the concept of ‘equal’ does not require the laws of different states to be the same. If one state, say California, wants to legalize medical marijuanna for treating illness and does so, is a Californian in Texas or a Texan not being treated equally if Texas decides not to and arrests the Californian and/or Texan for possession)? If the concept of equal expands to federal jurisdiction for state powers then the states lose their individual competency and jurisdiction over their laws.
If this gets to SCOTUS then I think that SCOTUS will say what I have just said: that the federal Constitution does not even mention marriage and therefore the power to define and solemnize marriage is reserved to the individual states.

]]> By: Michael Tracey http://lawdork.net/2009/07/14/clinton-on-marriage/#comment-1351 Michael Tracey Wed, 15 Jul 2009 02:40:44 +0000 http://lawdork.net/?p=2545#comment-1351 Thank you for raising these questions. I will be speaking with Clinton's spokesperson shortly, and can ask for clarification. Thank you for raising these questions. I will be speaking with Clinton’s spokesperson shortly, and can ask for clarification.

]]> By: PG http://lawdork.net/2009/07/14/clinton-on-marriage/#comment-1344 PG Tue, 14 Jul 2009 19:50:54 +0000 http://lawdork.net/?p=2545#comment-1344 Manos Torgo, Are you really certain that both Clinton and Obama think that the states' failure to recognize SSM violates the federal Constitution? I think it does, but I also can see a good-faith reading of the Constitution that would come to the opposite conclusion. You can oppose something as unjust and unfair without thinking that it also must be unconstitutional. Manos Torgo,
Are you really certain that both Clinton and Obama think that the states’ failure to recognize SSM violates the federal Constitution? I think it does, but I also can see a good-faith reading of the Constitution that would come to the opposite conclusion. You can oppose something as unjust and unfair without thinking that it also must be unconstitutional.

]]> By: Manos Torgo http://lawdork.net/2009/07/14/clinton-on-marriage/#comment-1343 Manos Torgo Tue, 14 Jul 2009 19:44:15 +0000 http://lawdork.net/?p=2545#comment-1343 Not the least bit surprised by Clinton's "support" of SSM...in principle. And thats what that is, support in principle. Clinton, like Obama is a pragmatist and not a firebrand, which may be disappointing at times, but in the long run is the smart move. Though I prefer pragmatists like this voice a bit more idealism to remind their supporters what they are up to. Clinton like Obama would rather see this issue fought at the state level so that there is a sense of legitimacy with recognition of SSM that might be lacking with an edict from the Federal government. But rather than spell out that sometimes we compromise legal and moral principle for the sake of making sure that changes take root, he and Obama has done side steps by claiming its an issue for the states, when it really is a case of equal protection, especially for those politicians who court support from the LGBT community. The injustice of this entire issue is knowing how the law should be applied and yet knowing that law alone does not equal social change, so a slow PR campaign of gradual "acceptance" is fought. Reconciling that is not easy, maybe it shouldn't be reconciled at all either.Maybe these imperfect steps are the key to driving us forward in order to continue this tug of war resulting in hard fought, unjust compromises as we progress upon this road of civil rights as we have over more than 200 years. Not the least bit surprised by Clinton’s “support” of SSM…in principle. And thats what that is, support in principle. Clinton, like Obama is a pragmatist and not a firebrand, which may be disappointing at times, but in the long run is the smart move. Though I prefer pragmatists like this voice a bit more idealism to remind their supporters what they are up to.
Clinton like Obama would rather see this issue fought at the state level so that there is a sense of legitimacy with recognition of SSM that might be lacking with an edict from the Federal government.
But rather than spell out that sometimes we compromise legal and moral principle for the sake of making sure that changes take root, he and Obama has done side steps by claiming its an issue for the states, when it really is a case of equal protection, especially for those politicians who court support from the LGBT community.
The injustice of this entire issue is knowing how the law should be applied and yet knowing that law alone does not equal social change, so a slow PR campaign of gradual “acceptance” is fought.
Reconciling that is not easy, maybe it shouldn’t be reconciled at all either.Maybe these imperfect steps are the key to driving us forward in order to continue this tug of war resulting in hard fought, unjust compromises as we progress upon this road of civil rights as we have over more than 200 years.

]]> By: President Bill “DADT & DOMA” Clinton Doesn’t Support DOMA – Any Longer | The New Civil Rights Movement http://lawdork.net/2009/07/14/clinton-on-marriage/#comment-1340 President Bill “DADT & DOMA” Clinton Doesn’t Support DOMA – Any Longer | The New Civil Rights Movement Tue, 14 Jul 2009 18:07:40 +0000 http://lawdork.net/?p=2545#comment-1340 [...] thinks we may be a bit too optimistic in our reading of Bill Clinton’s comments: “Clinton on Marriage.” Related Posts:Obama Administration Fighting For Gay Rights Over There So They [...] [...] thinks we may be a bit too optimistic in our reading of Bill Clinton’s comments: “Clinton on Marriage.” Related Posts:Obama Administration Fighting For Gay Rights Over There So They [...]

]]>